About those tapes

Share Button

Hearings resume at 0930 hours (9:30 am), Wednesday, 15 January 2008. Garry Guzzo will return for his next round of pummelling.

Obviously no one at the diocesan centre or across the wild blue yonder in the Vatican paid heed and called off the diocese’s guard dogs. The diocese (David Sheriff-Scott) went after Garry Gazzo with a vengeance. Guzzo held his own. He buckled a little here and there, at times giving Sheriff-Scott the highly prized “I’m not sure.” There were a few feisty exchanges and fireworks. When Guzzo had had enough of Sheriff-Scott’s prodding and badgering and “Might I suggest”s he let loose. On one occasion he told Sheriff-Scott if he, Sheriff-Scott, knows so much about what Guzzo said and did he should take the stand and give evidence.

I think the gathered throng are tag teaming their efforts to discredit Guzzo. It looks that way. First it was Alan Manson (Citizens for Community Renewal) who kicked off the attack by honing in on the porn tapes issue. It seems that the object of the exercise here was to get the message out that if Guzzo didn’t personally see and view porn tapes they don’t exist. Barring one 8mm film which allegedly starred Ken Seguin and one of his “alleged” victims, Guzzo hasn’t seen any of the referenced porn tapes, ergo, they don’t exist. The existence of home made porn in Cornwall, is, it seems, to be understood as part of the “rumour” and “innuendo” swirling around Cornwall. (Since he couldn’t see Ken Seguin’s or the “alleged” victim’s faces in the 8mm film it doesn’t count. )

That was Citizens for Community Renewal contribution.

Then it was on to a bomb shell dropped by Frank Horn (the Coalition). I’ll come to that in a minute.

Then on to the diocese/Bishop Emeritus Eugene Larocque.

The diocese and Larocque had obviously bid Sheriff-Scott to paint Guzzo as a crusading MPP who made mistakes with his facts here, embellished them there, rubbed shoulders with the Dunlops here, and talked to Carson Chisholm there. When Sheriff-Scoot asked Guzzo to acknowledge that he made mistakes as a member of parliament Guzzo candidly quipped he did, and he had made them when he was a judge and lawyer too!

I find it hard to reconcile the fact that Sheriff-Scott’s snarling and hissing is not only sanctioned but ordered by Bishop Paul Andre Durocher and his predecessor Eugene Larocdque. The bishops say “sic him’” and away Sheriff-Scott goes.

Sheriff-Scott went after Guzzo with a vengeance regarding some problematic Fort Lauderdale motel receipts in the name of Eugene Larocque. OPP Detective Inspector Pat Hall allegedly told Guzzo that he, Hall, had obtained the receipts. Sheriff-Scott is adamant that Hall said no such thing and will so testify. He snarled and badgered away on that one.

Guzzo didn’t budge – indeed not only does he recall Hall telling him about the receipt, he specifically recalls asking if Larocque was going to be charged, and he recalls Hall pointing out that Larocque wasn’t a bishop at the time! A problem.

No matter. The long and the short of it is that in the legal world Sheriff Scott did his thing for his clients and, barring the unfinished business of the Larocque receipts – which now must remain outstanding until Pat Hall takes the stand – he did it reasonably. He’s what Justice Glaude might dub a “damn good” lawyer.

There was some government finance talk and questions from Mr. Bennett (Men’s Project). Peter Chisholm (Children’s Aid Society) had a couple of questions. Darrell Kloeze (Ministry of the Attorney General) will wrap up in the morning. Then it’s on to the rest. I believe the Ontario Provincial Police, Ontario Provincial Police Association and Cornwall Police Service will be keen to go for the jugular. Guzzo has not been particularly impressed by their efforts over the years and has not been hesitant to speak his mind.


The bombshell.

There has been much ado over tapes – the existence or absence of kiddie porn and /or home made porn. Those defending the “alleged”paedophiles of Cornwall and those who covered up on their behalf take pains to negate its existence. Even lead counsel Peter Engelmann went to what seemed to me to be inordinate lengths to ensure Ron Leroux said on the record that although he never watched any of Ken Seguin’s alleged porn collection he knew it was commercial adult gay porn because that’s how the cases were marked.

Yesterday another whole new dimension to this dirty business opened up. It relates to tapes which former Liberal MPP John Cleary once had his possession. How he got them I am unsure, but would guess they may have been handed over to him by a victim.

Mr. Cleary no longer has the tape (s). I will leave what he has to say about the tapes and what became of them to Mr. Cleary. In light of what transpired yesterday in the Weave Shed it is imperative that he be called to testify.

Here’s the way the bomb dropped and the ruckus which ensued. Note there was no mention of what kind of tapes Mr. Cleary had. Just the mention of tapes was suffice to send everyone into a tail spin:

MR. HORN: … Were you aware of the videotapes that John Cleary had and that he had given to the CCR?[Citizens for Community Renewal]

MR. GUZZO: No, I was not.

MR. HORN: You didn’t know about those —


MR. HORN: — particular tapes that been — that were given to the citizen’s group?

MR. GUZZO: No, I —

MR. MANSON: Objection. Mr. Horn just made reference my clients and I have no idea what you’re talking about.

MR. ENGELMANN: These aren’t facts before the Inquiry.


MR. HORN: I’m just asking if he knows about them because I’ve been advised by my clients that there were tapes.


MR. HORN: I just wanted to know if he knew anything about that.

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I know but it raises the spectrum that all the parties are supposed to disclose things to the Inquiry which would mean that if the CCR has any films, they — so, do you have knowledge?

MR. HORN: I was told by my clients regarding these —

THE COMMISSIONER: And what did —

MR. HORN: — that Mr. Cleary indicated that to Mr. Chisholm that there were tapes that were given to members of the CCR.


MR. HORN: I was advised —

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, hold on now – just a second.


I’d suggest, sir, the mischief of this line of inquiry is that Mr. Carson Chisholm has come and gone.


MR. SHERRIFF-SCOTT: And none of this evidence was elicited from him through your counsel, or otherwise offered by him in any way, and the videotape discussion was clearly a matter in which he testified.

So, this is a brand new thing after the witness has come and gone, which is most unfair to everyone here.


MR. ENGELMANN: Sir, I wasn’t present for Mr. Chisholm but I believe it went even further than that. I believe he said he had no knowledge of videotapes. I think it went that far. In any event, this is not fact in issue.

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, just a second now.

Wait a minute now. Whether it’s a fact in issue there, if there’s someone out there who has films I think it’s important for us to know.

MR. ENGELMANN: Absolutely.

THE COMMISSIONER: So, what you’re saying —

MR. ENGELMANN: I think he could ask Mr. Guzzo if he’s aware if anyone told him that Mr. Cleary had films but he shouldn’t insert it as a fact.


MR. ENGELMANN: That’s my concern.

MR. HORN: Well, that’ll be the way I will question it. Are you aware of Mr. Cleary having any of these tapes?

MR. GUZZO: No, I’m not sir.

MR. HORN: That was never part of any discussions you had with Mr. Cleary?

MR. GUZZO: No, it was not.

After lunch Mr. Manson had this to say:

Mr. Commissioner, I’ve just come from a meeting with my clients and because of the issue of rumour and innuendo in the community and the presence of the media and the webcast, I’m obliged to make three very brief points about the incident that arose during Mr. Horn’s cross-examination of Mr. Guzzo…..I first want to say, Mr. Cleary is not one of my clients.

Number two, as you pointed out when you mentioned disclosure, I stand behind the disclosure that we’ve made and nobody from the CCR that I’ve ever spoken to or has ever come to a meeting and heard me speak has had any involvement with the video tapes that we were discussing or any alleged copies of them.

The other point is more general, Mr. Commissioner. While this may be a public inquiry and the rules of evidence may be relaxed and the scope of cross-examination is very broad and you’ve permitted broad scope —all counsel are obliged, number one, to put evidence accurately and fairly to witnesses in cross-examination and, number two, according to dictum from the Supreme Court of Canada, if counsel is going to put something to a witness that is not in evidence, and they don’t anticipate will be in evidence they have to have had a reasonable belief in it’s truth.And my submission,Mr. Commissioner, is the suggestion that was made to Mr. Guzzo about the CCR and the video tapes was specious and singularly inappropriate as cross-examination.


My software is functional once again – I have been catching up on postings on the website. Check New to the Site on the Home page. I always list and link all new postings there.

There is a lot of media coverage. Also much interest in Perry‘s plight. Lots to do. The computer glitch couldn’t have come at a worse time. But, such is life. For now I am cutting corners by posting articles together.


Note the articles on Monsignor Bernard Prince. Four years for raping the souls of thirteen boy’s. Four years? An outrage. An absolute outrage!!

Speaking of Monsignor Prince, and just to show you how small the Roman Catholic world in Ontario is, look at this…

Prince is a canon lawyer. He was President of the Canadian Canon Law Society from 1985 to 1987. Amidst his shuttling about he taught at Ottawa’s University of St. Paul.

Father Frank Morrissey is a canon lawyer and for years was a professor of canon law at St. Paul’s. Morrissey testified as an “expert”witness at the inquiry. He has also given inquiry-related assistance to the diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall. He also taught Bishop Paul Andre Durocher. And Father Charles MacDonald. It’s highly probable he also taught Jacques Leduc.

Morrisey believes it is “bad stewardship” to throw away the $250,000 invested in ordaining a priest by defrocking him. He has traveled much of the Roman Catholic world advising dioceses how to deal with allegations of clerical sexual abuse.

Morrissey was founding editor of Canada’s Canon Law journal Studia canonica. In the journal’s premier edition Morrissey ran an article by Father Bernard Prince, then Vice-Chancellor of the Diocese of Pembroke, Ontario.

The bishop of Pembroke was William Smith. Prior to his consecration as bishop and installation as Bishop of Pembroke Smith was a priest in the Diocese of Alexandria (now Alexandria-Cornwall).

Father Frank Morrissey and Colin McKinnon were co-founders of the St. Thomas More Lawyer’s Guild in Ottawa. (Colin McKinnon is the lawyer who did business for the Cornwall Police Service for years, advocated charging Perry Dunlop under the Police Services Act and threatened legal action against Carson Chisholm on Claude Shaver’s behalf. He’s also the judge who took the bench at the sex abuse trial of Cornwall layer and Church canon lawyer Jacques Leduc, cited Dick Nadeau with contempt of court after Dick posted the The Right to Know is the Bedrock of Democracy on his website, and had to recuse himself after he was publicly confronted with his conflict of interest.

Yes. It’s a small small world.

And on that note, it’s late (early?) and that truly is

Enough for now,


This entry was posted in Alexandria-Cornwall Diocese, Bishops, Canada, Clerical sexual predators, Cornwall, Cornwall Public Inquiry, Ken Seguin, Scandal and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to About those tapes

  1. Myomy says:

    One place that Guzzo did not buckle was in admitting that he was mistaken about suspecting Bishop Laroque after having Sherrif Scott asking the question three times and implying in one case that he had a case for purjury with the answer Guzzo did not change the testimony.

  2. prima facie says:

    January 15, 2008.

    Garry Guzzo and David Sherriff-Scott:
    “For The Greater Good”?

    Did anyone else watch the “show” today? (Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2008.)

    As I have stated in previous “blog-comments”, I believe, of course, the “big picture”, will be to make the “system” come out, “smelling pretty good”, at the end of this public inquiry. After all, that is what public inquiries are all about. (“Google” public inquiries, definitions, intentions, pros, con’s). I believe the “system”, through this inquiry, intends to completely exonerate the so-called “accused”, their supporters, protectors, co-conspirators and to vilify the “whistleblower”…for the perceived, “Greater Good”.

    Mr. Guzzo (giving testimony this week) is made to look like an incompetent, showboating politician, who was pre-occupied with seeking his own “fame”, recognition and even “acceptance”, from within his own, “Political Party”.

    Today, Mr. Guzzo was led, with little resistance, to the proverbial “quagmire”. Like a wildebeest stuck in the mud, the “pride” began to salivate and circle the weaker elder.
    On more than one occasion, Mr. Guzzo appeared “doomed.”

    Today, it seemed to me, that Mr. Guzzo was portrayed as a co-conspirator “type”, who, arguably, grandstanded with political rhetoric and helped to “craft and disseminate”, “false allegations”, rumour and innuendo, from the comfort of his priviledged, self-serving, podium. Accusations of spreading callous, reckless, rumour and innuendo, ruining the lives of many innocent, “wrongly accused”, prominent citizen’s, filled the air, in the Weave Shed.

    Believe me, it’s easy to do,…..finding “cracks and holes” in evidence and testimony….I mean. The court room, so to say, versus, the real world. Incongruities?
    It’s very easy to find discrepancies, inconsistencies, etc. and thereafter, discredit the witness, speculate and demolish credibility and reputations, with conjecture.
    There is always room for the, “should have, could have, why not, why” debate…..in everything, with everyone: EX) “in court or other, if you do not cross the “T” and dot the “I” or cover your “butt”, everywhere, every time, which is impossible for anyone to do, there will be the “cracks and holes” to exploit. Especially in these cases.
    Add to this, the expert skills of a well versed, well nurtured lawyer like David Sherriff-Scott. Believe me, he was retained to find every crack and every hole there is or “could be”.

    Specifically, in these type of “abuse” “files”, as well as other very “dysfunctional, closed-system” type scenarios,….when, persuading “alleged victims” and others, to provide testimony, give evidence or to display willingness to participate, cooperate, talk-corroborate or testify and “stick to the same story” for five minutes, ….IT IS NOT EASY, to say the least.
    The “perceived” helper is loved one minute and hated the next. This goes on, month after month, year after year and at the drop of a feather.
    The point I am asserting is, as in anything, there will always be cracks and holes, which is exactly why, only “long-term treated” survivor’s, not “alleged victims”, should engage in these “court and/or inquiry” type hearings.
    In my opinion, THERE was absolutely NO WAY Mr. Guzzo could have kept reliable and updated notes, names, stories or anything straight. Impossible with this “clientele”.

    Mr. Sherriff-Scott (Borden, Ladner, Gervais), is the best of the best, when it comes to finding and exploiting, the cracks, inconsistencies, shortcomings, etc, in testimony, records and evidence of others,…..further casting doubt on testimony and calling into question, the credibility of the witness, such as he did with Mr. Guzzo.

    In my opinion, Sherriff-Scott is the “David Copperfield” of…., “being able to present before our very eyes”, the real and the imagined, creating in us, the “perceived”, …….inconsistencies, weaknesses, shortcomings, etc….and therewith, the “trump card”…”reasonable doubt”, necessary or not.

    YOU are correct Mr. Sherriff-Scott, none of your clients WERE ever CHARGED or found guilty. Does that really mean, they never committed the “alleged” acts, documented, by many complainants, in various venues?
    AND correct again Mr. Sherriff-Scott. As a result of the “Project Truth” related investigation of “Cornwall Community Police Services” by the Ottawa Police, Ottawa Police, found NO EVIDENCE, to support charging anyone. Again, does that mean, there was no evidence or that, they couldn’t find any evidence. For example; as a hypothetical exercise, let’s assess the “fictional”scenario, that I am the Deputy Police Chief of Cornwall Community Police Services. For various reason’s, I am not interested in having the Ottawa Police “find” or “review”, very important evidence. My Question: Firstly, do I have the “motive”, “reason”, time and “opportunity”, to destroy or hide documents? Secondly, could I then provide the “investigating” officers with limited and/or misleading documentations? (The scenario: Is it “fact or fiction” “YOU DECIDE”)

    IN CONCLUSION: We have all read or heard reference/similarities to, “THE FRANKLIN COVER-UP”, “Franklin, Nebraska”.

    I suspect this “Cornwall Public Inquiry” will conclude as did, “”The Franklin Cover-up”, that is, “The Grand Jury Says Abuse Stories Were Carefully Crafted Hoax.” “Omaha World Herald”.

    AND FINALLY: Despite the fine, wise and brilliantly expert abilities, of David Sherriff-Scott, I find it very hard to accept and even more difficult to believe, that after being off (sick) for some time now, Mr. Garry Guzzo, in returning to finish his testimony,….
    yes Mr. Guzzo, a well trained, highly educated , highly credentialed, highly experienced and highly connected…lawyer, judge and politician, was so easily led into the “quagmire”….that he never got out of!! (changing of the guard?.) Have a “GOOD” retirement Mr. Guzzo, for the “GREATER GOOD”.

  3. prima facie says:

    IS THIS AN ABUSE of Power and an abuse of “The Press”? Could the Remarks Influence the Public Inquiry itself or a potential witness?

    See, “Lawyer demands client recall; Motion says Adams wasn’t treated fairly.”
    By: “Claude McIntosh,” “Standard-Freeholder”, January 16, 2008.

    Well documented since 1993, have been concerns, by local citizen’s, about the local newspaper, the Cornwall, “Standard-Freeholder” in general and “Claude McIntosh”, one time Associate Editor and now columnist, specifically. Complaints generally, surrounded/surround, assertions that the newspaper was biased and consistently writing, slanted “editorials”, supportive of the many of “accused”, including their supporters and their protectors, while at the same time chastising the public and the “complainants”.

    Even a former, local politician, has stated, that he “interpreted” the local news media stories, to be “fanning the flames” of discomfort and anger, regarding “Project Truth” issues. Additionally, many writers’ state that their “letters to the editor” are not published, or have been “edited” to the point that the original message is completely misrepresented and misunderstood.

    Furthermore, at least one writer claims to have been threatened by a telephone call at home from an employee of the Cornwall “Standard-Freeholder”, implying and therewith threatening the citizen, that the newspaper was going to “sue” the citizen.

    Last week, in an “editorial”, Claude McIntosh, briefly alludes to his dear, close friend, Sean Adams. Mr. McIntosh asks, what happened to a “motion” submitted regarding, “Cornwall Public Inquiry” witness Sean Adams.

    TODAY, January 16, 2008, McIntosh goes much further. He writes a complete and compelling editorial, which many people “could” interpret as being his “representation” of, the, “pristine” Sean Adams.

    I urge reader’s to research and review articles written by Claude McIntosh since, surrounding these issues, since in or before 1993.

Leave a Reply